To Religious Critics of "Noah" ...
Please read and respond:
https://landsofforever.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/noah/
Hamlet Noggs @ http://landsofforever.wordpress.com/
I read the article and of course it told of how in antiquity there is not one but many flood legends so the director kind of took key elements from all the myths and knitted them together with his own story line.
That's fine but I really think the movie should have been called "flood legend" to be more accurate.
Using the name Noah is extremely specific and identifies the legendary character from a very specific legend namely the Judaeo-Christian character. The story of this character is very clear on the fact that Noah and his family found favor with God and Noah was specifically instructed to build the Ark not just to save the tetropods but the lineage of humankind as well. This is well understood.
I get that it is Hollywood, and that the taking of any story and reinventing it is part of the creative process.
I also get that the director is an atheist and Hollywood in general is largely pagan, New Age or anything except Christian.
My comment is this: if the director had made a movie entitled Charles Darwin and then proceeded to play down his role in scientific discoveries and concentrate on his role promoting racial inequality and spend the whole movie focusing on the "observation" that there was surely a hierarchy among the "races", do you think there would be some upset audience members?
If so why?
Do you get my point?
"Knowledge is power"
Bobby G. McIlvaine
I get that it is Hollywood, and that the taking of any story and reinventing it is part of the creative process.
Not just "stories" but history, some of it very recent, gets "reinvented" all the time.
Heck, Fox News (and other outlets) even takes the events and facts of the hour and day and liberally changes almost everything.
But you're upset over a few minor details from your favorite book of fairy tales?
“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”
Heck, Fox News (and other outlets) even takes the events and facts of the hour and day and liberally changes almost everything.
Yeah I know. I often watch FOX news just for the entertainment value.
But you're upset over a few minor details from your favorite book of fairy tales?
No-one ever said that I was "upset." I didn't say my favorite book was the bible either. (It seems your post was a bit presumptuous.)
Actually these were my comments and questions:
My comment is this: if the director had made a movie entitled Charles Darwin and then proceeded to play down his role in scientific discoveries and concentrate on his role promoting racial inequality and spend the whole movie focusing on the "observation" that there was surely a hierarchy among the "races", do you think there would be some upset audience members?
If so why?
Do you get my point?
I did ask three questions to which you chose to ignore in lieu of personal speculations about myself.
Would you like to address these questions? I would be very interested in hearing your responses.
"Knowledge is power"
Bobby G. McIlvaine
share
Thank you for your response.
I have seen the questions you pose and I will take a stab at them later in the day.
Hamlet Noggs @ http://landsofforever.wordpress.com/
I did ask three questions to which you chose to ignore in lieu of personal speculations about myself.
If you promote common arguments of anti-evolution religionists, it is not unfounded to think you may be in their camp.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
And please forgive me if I did not deign to answer trick questions of the sort "when did you stop beating your wife?".
The fact is that you have chosen to focus on something that is, at best, only trivial.
Consider the myriads of biopics that concentrate on personal, rather than professional, aspects of the subjects in question. I would wager that they form the vast majority of such movies.
And consider also the vast numbers of retellings and reimaginings and disneyfications of fairy tales, myths, and legends, etc.
So why be so surprised when the same is done to another book of fairy tales, just because some call it scripture?
In fact, this film, Noah, is actually vastly much more respectful and faithful to any "original" than most of those other instances.
So one must ask...and I don't think I am being presumptuous...why this so struck you so particularly?
I would be interested in an honest answer to this...
“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
Wow, let's keep things real. I never suggested that Darwin was a Nazi or that he was responsible for WW2 so this link seems strangely out of place. Was he racist in his views? Of course, he was a product of the time era in which he lived. Even Dawkins has acknowledged this.
And please forgive me if I did not deign to answer trick questions of the sort "when did you stop beating your wife?".
"Trick question." really? What I asked bears no resemblance at all to what you are comparing it to.
Neither question is really that hard. If someone asked me the question that you proposed as being an example of one that can't be answered I would simply respond: I have never beaten my wife and never would. Why would you suggest otherwise?
Very very simple. Yet my question was not only much simpler than that it was directly relevant to the topic (whereas your example was not.)
I guess the obvious point and your failure to even be capable to address it is that yes, of course the film was insensitive to a large population of the world that enjoys, believes, or takes some comfort in the Noah myth.
The movie had the central hero who God had supposedly chosen to save (the shining example of future humanity) trying to stab a baby with a knife. Are you seriously even trying to tell me that you don't see how some people would be offended?
Of course you do which is why you couldn't answer my question.
And consider also the vast numbers of retellings and reimaginings and disneyfications of fairy tales, myths, and legends, etc.
I get that but these other tales, myths and legends don't have the same amount of emotional investment from such a large population of the world.
That is what gave my question validity and also why you couldn't answer it.
"Knowledge is power"
Bobby G. McIlvaine share
Wow, let's keep things real. I never suggested that Darwin was a Nazi or that he was responsible for WW2 so this link seems strangely out of place. Was he racist in his views? Of course, he was a product of the time era in which he lived.
Yes, let's be real and not pretend such innocence when your own words say otherwise:
concentrate on his role promoting racial inequality
If he was just a product of his time, how can you single out such a role?
Again, this is the exact sort of argument anti-evolutionists and religionists use, so entirely appropriate and relevant to cite; perhaps you wouldn't go as far as some others might, but that is only an issue of quantity rather than substance.
yes, of course the film was insensitive to a large population of the world that enjoys, believes, or takes some comfort in the Noah myth.
One might dispute how large that population might be that is actually offended, or of those offended, how many have actually seen the film. I would wager the number is actually quite low.
And, even of those few, how many really understand what is going on in the film?
The movie had the central hero who God had supposedly chosen to save (the shining example of future humanity) trying to stab a baby with a knife. Are you seriously even trying to tell me that you don't see how some people would be offended?
If they are offended, then good! There are plenty of instances in scripture and dogma that demand blind obedience, that demand death and destruction and infliction of misery.
Of those that have such faith, causing any discomfort to them should be the least of our worries.
Besides, I find it perplexing that you would think they would prefer some cartoonish, cardboard cutout version of some story that they hold such attachment, or that they would be so insecure and touchy regarding their faith that they would find it so unbearable to endure the smallest of speculations.
I get that but these other tales, myths and legends don't have the same amount of emotional investment from such a large population of the world.
Not always the case; certainly there are modern stories (such as Star Wars) whose fans are much more emotionally invested in those stories than the ones you cite are for the biblical story of Noah.
And what about all the allegedly factual movies, biopics or others of historical nature? Many deal with controversial or otherwise sensitive matters, both personal and ideological.
That is what gave my question validity and also why you couldn't answer it.
I have answered it in many different ways, and also showed how the question is not really valid.
Your failure of comprehension is akin to those of blind faith, who cannot or will not see what they do not wish to see.
Again, even granting your mostly unfounded suppositions (and that is a very big grant) that is no cause for any sort of censorship, neither state or -industry mandated, nor self-inflicted, certainly not for what is undeniably a serious artistic effort.
Art does sometimes offend; indeed, that may be part of its essential function.
For a movie such as Noah there is a simple solution for those who may fear such: just don't watch the film!
“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”
Yes, let's be real and not pretend such innocence when your own words say otherwise:
No they don't. I was comparing one absurd distortion of a legend and the feelings that it generates to another that presumably you would be able to feel more sympathy for namely a gross distortion of a scientific/historical account that many people feel strongly about.
My post was quite clear. My point wasn't that Darwin's life would be better defined by his racist tendencies but that a movie that did so would most certainly offend people as opposed to having people writing on boards that a lot of historical accounts are liberal with the facts.
Your immediate response very emphatically proved my point. You took offense and linked me to a site that actively debunks outragous claims against Darwin.
It is quite clear then that you see my point that when a movie is made about a historical event, biopic, or about a well known myth that if you portray the hero of the movie in a way that some people don't like there will be some people who don't like it or even might take offense (depending on the people.)
concentrate on his role promoting racial inequality
Again to be clear, Darwin did have some racist views and they are well known in his writings. That is just a simple fact and it is well acknowledged. To take this one sentence (phrase from within a sentence actually) and use it as evidence of anything when it doesn't reflect the point I was making in context is, well, let's charitably call it an honest mistake on your part.
If he was just a product of his time, how can you single out such a role?
First and foremost when someone makes a movie they can single out whatever they want. My point is that if it portrayed Charles Darwin in a negative way there would be some offended people just as if you make a film about Noah and take the main character and make him try to kill everyone on the boat, quite obviously some people are either going to be offended or at the least just won't like the movie.
That is to be expected. Let me give you a better example than my hypothetical one:
People were offended with "The Passion" because they felt it focused much too heavily on the abusiveness of the Jews toward Jesus. The violence was overstated and coming from a director that has said antisemitic things it isn't unreasonable to think the movie had a bit of an agenda for promoting his antisemitic world view.
One might dispute how large that population might be that is actually offended, or of those offended, how many have actually seen the film. I would wager the number is actually quite low.
I would doubt that. I am sure a lot of religious people saw it. Noah was a very major A list Hollywood production with a great cast. I would think religious people would be first in line to see one of their bible myths on the big screen (or rental dvd places). I certainly was excited to watch it and I can't say that I personally was offended but I can say critically that I didn't care much for the concept of Noah thinking that it was his mission to kill everyone.
I do agree that the number of people who were probably offended were likely quite low. Probably fewer than the number of people offended by Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" which ironically didn't veer from the facts much but was meticulously researched by Stone to his credit. (A lot of people just didn't like the implications.)
And, even of those few, how many really understand what is going on in the film?
Sorry I don't understand this comment. If they are the few who actually saw the film then why wouldn't they understand it?
Again, even granting your mostly unfounded suppositions (and that is a very big grant) that is no cause for any sort of censorship, neither state or -industry mandated, nor self-inflicted, certainly not for what is undeniably a serious artistic effort.
I am against censorship too. The director is an atheist and he can make the film Noah in any way he likes. That's called freedom.
He could make a film documentary that uses science to debunk the plausibility of Noah's Ark if he wanted. No-one should stop him.
Film message boards are a forum where we can tell our opinions of the films. I thought the film had some good moments and I like the cast but all in all I found the changes to the original story to be unsatisfying.
I personally didn't find it offensive. I just was a bit disappointed with the end product especially the hero (Noah) and the boat itself (which looked like it was made out of straw and logs)
http://comingflood.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/noah-movie-ark.jpg
This is more along the lines of my image of what would need to have been used:
http://joeforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ark.jpg
"Knowledge is power"
Bobby G. McIlvaine share
Regarding your first question I think the implication is that, in some way, the Genesis narrative has been played down in this film. I reject that implication. The key features of the Genesis narrative, in my opinion, have been preserved. Implied as well in your question, I believe, is that attention has been given to something on the periphery of that Genesis story where central content might otherwise have been. I reject that implication as well. My sense is that the embellishments attempt to enflesh themes of the narrative first communicated in Genesis.
Regarding your second and third questions I think the answer to your first addresses them as well.
Hamlet Noggs @ http://landsofforever.wordpress.com/
Regarding your first question I think the implication is that, in some way, the Genesis narrative has been played down in this film. I reject that implication. The key features of the Genesis narrative, in my opinion, have been preserved. Implied as well in your question, I believe, is that attention has been given to something on the periphery of that Genesis story where central content might otherwise have been. I reject that implication as well. My sense is that the embellishments attempt to enflesh themes of the narrative first communicated in Genesis.
I didn't find the movie to be terrible or anything (although I have to say the SFX department could have came up with a boat that looked strong enough to handle the job at hand as opposed to looking like it was made of straw.)
My main issue in the deviation from the original theme was the idea of portraying Noah as one who is so religious to a nutty degree that he was perfectly willing to hack a baby up with a knife just to appease his inner voices. This is pretty much how many people within the atheistic community view religious fundamentalists. It propagates the New atheism theme that religion is not only unnecessary and frivolous in society but that it is destructive and turns people into serial killers.
I have read Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" and this fear is pandered among many others. If someone thinks they are killing for God then they will kill.
In a society where religion doesn't exist those same killers will be still killing except they will be doing it for their mothers, countries, money, or whatever else they can imagine (or can get from it.)
"Knowledge is power"
Bobby G. McIlvaine
share
It propagates the New atheism theme that religion is not only unnecessary and frivolous in society but that it is destructive and turns people into serial killers.
this fear is pandered among many others.
In a society where religion doesn't exist those same killers will be still killing
Your bias is abundantly clear, yet you complain when it is brought up.
That is the main problem with religion and the religious...logic is chucked right out the window with nary a second thought.
That in itself is extremely dangerous for society and humanity, even if there were no direct connections between religious ideologies and the atrocities so often inflicted in their names.
But those direct connections are ubiquitous, both historically and in modern times, even to this very day and hour.
Yes, removal of religion might not solve all of our problems, maybe not even most...but it is naive and willfully ignorant to assume or assert that it a force that is completely benign.
One should not be so hesitant to question or investigate such issues; nothing is sacrosanct, not even religion.
“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”
your bias is abundantly clear yet you complain when it is brought up
What you mean to say here is that I have expressed a different opinion and different worldview than that of your own so this must mean I am biased (and you with your worldview presumably are not.)
This also means that you are somewhat surprised that someone would complain when someone else calls them bias. What would you expect?
"Knowledge is power"
Bobby G. McIlvaine
share
Here is the thing though: We have a story in which the entirety of the human race – save for an infinitesimally small select view – are wiped from the face of that earth and you articulate concern about Noah believing that for even that select few the earth is no longer intended as a habitat for them. That bigger picture I believe Aronofsky has preserved and perhaps you have not.
For that reason I do not know that I find much to attach myself to in that perspective you maintain. Here is the way I look at it: The narrative of Noah as found in Genesis ends with him being in a drunken stupor and I see Aronofsky as simply trying to understand how Noah arrived at that point. What Noah almost did on that ark might be Aronofsky’s way of rationalizing that drunken state in which Noah is eventually found.
Hamlet Noggs @ http://landsofforever.wordpress.com/
That bigger picture I believe Aronofsky has preserved and perhaps you have not.
That is exactly right! The bigger picture is also that all scriptures are the product of human thought, and if considered such, we may reap what value (which can be great) we can from them.
But the religionists (and not just a few fundamentalists or extremists) are only concerned with preserving and protecting ideologies; they really care little for the true nature of whatever stories or texts ostensibly form the bases for their faiths.
Aronofsky, as you state, is actually much more respectful, even true, to the story, than any of the myriad of hollywood renderings.
But no, I guess it is just an insidious example of neo-atheistic propaganda...
Here is the way I look at it: The narrative of Noah as found in Genesis ends with him being in a drunken stupor and I see Aronofsky as simply trying to understand how Noah arrived at that point. What Noah almost did on that ark might be Aronofsky’s way of rationalizing that drunken state in which Noah is eventually found.
That would mean that Aronofsky is using what is unknown about the story to rationalize changing what is absolutely known about the story i.e pretty much everything from the number of wives on board to a stowaway to rock people, etc.
Both of you see to think that this was a fairly accurate representation of the bible myth. Just go to some of the religious sites and see what is written on them. They all hated it. Frankly I don't blame them.
The fact is that Noah, just wasn't a very good movie.
I haven't heard any critics whether religious or not say anything good about it.
Why no response about my comment about the boat?
Surely Hollywood can do better than this:
I personally didn't find it offensive. I just was a bit disappointed with the end product especially the hero (Noah) and the boat itself (which looked like it was made out of straw and logs)
http://comingflood.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/noah-movie-ark.jpg
This is more along the lines of my image of what would need to have been used:
http://joeforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ark.jpg
"Knowledge is power"
Bobby G. McIlvaine
share
While I thank you for your response I find your logic a little shaky and your language a little too exaggerated for me.
Can I ask that you moderate the language and tighten your reasoning and then I will respond? This will probably save a great deal of time otherwise wasted.
I refer you back to the comment of mine which ostensibly motivated yours.
Hamlet Noggs @ http://landsofforever.wordpress.com/
Can I ask that you moderate the language and tighten your reasoning and then I will respond?
I was wondering if you could please comment on the special effects concerning the architecture of the ark within the movie.
Do you feel looking at the construction of it that it would be able to rescue the tetropods of the world safely and hold together during Earth's world flood?
"Knowledge is power"
Bobby G. McIlvaine
share
I am not remotely interested in the question and have no expertise to offer in answer.
My sole interest is on the relationship between the biblical tale as found in Genesis and the work produced by Aronofsky.
I am looking for critics of the film who are religious to engage in a serious manner with the content of the post to which I link.
Hamlet Noggs @ http://landsofforever.wordpress.com/
Very well said.
shareFun fact about Darwinhttps://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/did-darwin-become-christian-his-deathbed
Jesus even loves Atheists
[deleted]